Views
A Plea for Private International Law
A new paper by Michael Green, A Plea for Private International Law (Conflict of Laws), was recently published as an Essay in the Notre Dame Law Review Reflection. Michael argues that although private international law is increasingly important in our interconnected world, it has fallen out of favor at top U.S. law schools. To quote from the Essay:
Private international law has not lost its jurisprudential import. And ease of travel, communication, and trade have only increased in the last century. But in American law schools (although not abroad), private international law has started dropping out of the curriculum, with the trend accelerating in the last five years or so. We have gone through US News and World Report’s fifty top-ranked law schools and, after careful review, it appears that twelve have not offered a course on private international law (or its equivalent) in the last four academic years: Arizona State University, Boston University, Brigham Young University, Fordham University, University of Georgia, University of Minnesota, The Ohio State University, Pepperdine University, Stanford University, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt University, and University of Washington. And even where the course is taught, in some law schools—such as Duke, New York University, and Yale—it is by visitors, adjuncts, or emerita. It is no longer a valued subject in faculty hiring.
CJEU’s first ruling on the conformity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses with the Brussels I recast regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention
by Guillaume Croisant, Claudia Cavicchioli, Nicole Rölike, Alexia Kaztaridou, and Julie Esquenazi (all Linklaters)
In a nutshell: reinforced legal certainty but questions remain
In its decision of yesterday (27 February 2025) in the Lastre case (Case C-537/23), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its long-awaited first judgment on the conformity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses with the Brussels I recast regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention.
The Court ruled that the validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses is assessed in the light of the autonomous rules of Article 25 of the regulation (rather than Member States’ national laws) and confirmed their validity where the clause can be interpreted as designating courts of EU or Lugano States.
This decision dispels some of the previous uncertainties, particularly arising from the shifting case law of the French Supreme Court. The details of the decision and any possible impact, in particular the requirement for the clause to be interpreted as designating courts of EU or Lugano States, will need to be analysed more closely, but on the whole the CJEU strengthened foreseeability and consistency regarding unilateral jurisdiction clauses under the Brussels I regulation and the Lugano convention.
Besides other sectors, this decision is of particular relevance in international financing transactions, including syndicated loans and capital markets, where asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in favour of the finance parties have been a long-standing practice.
Going International: The SICC in Frontier Holdings
By Sanjitha Ravi, Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India
The Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) in Frontier Holdings Ltd v. Petroleum Exploration (Pvt) Ltd overturned a jurisdictional ruling by an International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) arbitral tribunal, holding that the tribunal did, in fact, have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The SICC’s decision focused on interpreting the arbitration provisions in the Petroleum Concession Agreements (“PCAs”) and Joint Operating Agreements (“JOAs”), which had created ambiguity regarding whether disputes between foreign parties, i.e., Foreign Working Interest Owners (“FWIOs”), and Pakistan parties, i.e., Pakistani Working Interest Owners (“PWIOs”), were subject to international arbitration. The arbitral tribunal, by majority, had concluded the PCAs restricted ICC arbitration to disputes between FWIOs inter se or between FWIOs and the President of Pakistan, thereby excluding disputes between FWIOs and PWIOs. The SICC rejected this reasoning and concluded that the provisions should be applied with necessary modifications to fit the JOAs’ context by conducting an in-depth construction of the dispute resolution provisions of the different agreements involved. The court found that a reasonable interpretation of these provisions indicated an intention to submit FWIO-PWIO disputes to ICC arbitration rather than Pakistani domestic arbitration. Read more
News
27th Volume of the Japanese Yearbook of Private International Law (2025)
The 27th Volume (2025) of the Japanese Yearbook of Private International Law (JYPIL) (Kokusai Shiho Nenpo [Japanese]) published by the Private International Law Association of Japan (Kokusai Shiho Gakkai [Japanese]) (“PILAJ”) has recently been released.
This new volume features the following table of content.
The papers are published in Japanese; all links below direct to the papers’ English summaries.
Jiménez and Martínez on A Private International Law for Colombia
Colombian private international law research has been witnessing a notable period of renewed scholarly activity. Following a previous announcement on this blog of the publication of a volume dedicated to the Colombian Draft Project on Private International Law, a further significant contribution has now been published, this time offering a broader and more systematic perspective on the field. This new contribution takes the form of a book edited by María Julia Ochoa Jiménez (Loyola University) and Claudia Madrid Martínez (University of Antioquia), entitled “A Private International Law for Colombia”, published in the Springer Textbooks in Law series (Springer, 2025).
According to the publisher’s website, the book offers a “[c]omprehensive study of issues underlying PIL, particularly in Latin America and Colombia”, provides “[s]ystematical analysis of PIL rules in Colombia, allowing readers to understand how they deal with global issues”, and “[a]ddresses rules in force, critically examines them and, accordantly, presents and discusses a legislative proposal”. Read more
Quick and easy access to German case law in private international law – One year of ‘IPRspr 2.0’ (and almost 100 years of ‘IPRspr’)
Quick and easy access to German case law in private international law – One year of ‘IPRspr 2.0’ (and almost 100 years of ‘IPRspr’)
A comprehensive and carefully curated database providing free access to German court decisions on private international law – www.iprspr.de
Ralf Michaels/Jan Peter Schmidt